George W. Bush first heard about the 9/11 attack when chief of staff Andrew Card spoke to him in a whisper while he was reading a book to elementary students in Sarasota, Florida. ((I wrote this article before Bill O’Reilly made the same point to Bob Beckel.)) Card only delivered the news to the president after the second plane hit, thinking the first plane crash was a horrible accident. After hearing of the attack, the president kept on reading. When he was finished, he calmly got up and departed.
For his continued reading and his calmness throughout the ordeal, Liberals tore him apart.
Bush was criticized for not acting decisively. He should have raced out of the classroom filled with 7-year-olds and acted presidential. He should have taken command of the situation. The President looked stupefied like he didn’t know what to do.
Bush did the right thing as students who were there looked back 10 years later. The following is from a May 2011 TIME magazine article “The Interrupted Reading: George W. Bush on 9/11”:
“But I’ll always remember watching his face turn red. He got really serious all of a sudden. But I was clueless. I was just 7. I’m just glad he didn’t get up and leave, because then I would have been more scared and confused.” Chantal Guerrero, 16, agrees. Even today, she’s grateful that Bush regained his composure and stayed with the students until The Pet Goat was finished. “I think the President was trying to keep us from finding out,” says Guerrero, “so we all wouldn’t freak out.”
In addition to the Liberal charges against President Bush’s “unpresidential” demeanor, there are the conspiracy theorists who contend that his relaxed behavior was because he knew about the attacks beforehand. If he had known, and wanted to give the impression that he didn’t know, he would have made a greater show of emotion.
Now compare the way President Bush was maligned by the media over continuing to read a children’s book to 7-year-olds when a second plane had crashed into the Twin Towers and how they are nearly dismissing the flood of information that’s coming in that the White House and the State Department knew about the embassy attack and did nothing to stop it.
Let’s not forget the fund raising trip that President Obama took to Las Vegas the next day.
Then there’s the continued lie that the attacks were spontaneous. We were repeatedly told that the riots were the result of an anti-Muhammad video. Obama’s surrogates were sent out to push the video narrative on talk shows. President Obama even went to the United Nations blaming the attacks on the video. None of it was true, and the White House knew it:
“Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”
This story is so big now that the media have to report on it. The non-traditional media have forced their hand, although I did see a CNN anchor try to push the video-made-them-do-it narrative in her interview with a TIME magazine writer who reported that the guards knew the attacks were planned to take place on the anniversary of 9/11.
If I ever get a call to appear on a talk show (don’t hold your breath), here’s the first thing I will ask the interviewer: “How would you have reported this story if it had happened when George W. Bush or any Republican had been president?”